Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

Cisco Exam 300-415 Topic 1 Question 82 Discussion

Actual exam question for Cisco's 300-415 exam
Question #: 82
Topic #: 1
[All 300-415 Questions]

Refer to the exhibit.

Customer XYZ cannot provison dual connectivity on both Its routers due to budget constratnts but wants to use tnth RI and R2 interface for users behind them for load toward the hub site Which configurauon achieves this objectives?

A)

B)

C)

D)

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

Contribute your Thoughts:

Mabel
11 months ago
I think option D might also be worth considering for redundancy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
11 months ago
I agree with Option C seems like the most cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annice
11 months ago
But option C utilizes both R1 and R2 interfaces efficiently.
upvoted 0 times
...
An
12 months ago
I disagree. I believe option B is the best choice.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annice
12 months ago
I think option C would achieve the objective.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joesph
12 months ago
I'm not sure. I think Option C also looks like a viable option. It utilizes R1 and R2 interfaces effectively as well.
upvoted 0 times
...
Jeffrey
12 months ago
I agree with Man. Option B seems to be the most suitable choice for achieving the objective within the budget constraints.
upvoted 0 times
...
Man
1 years ago
I think the correct answer is Option B because it shows the configuration of using both R1 and R2 interfaces for load towards the hub site.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristin
1 years ago
I don't know, I'm kind of partial to option C. It looks like it would give us a bit more flexibility in terms of load balancing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lashawna
1 years ago
I don't know, you guys. I'm kind of thinking option B looks the most straightforward. But then again, these certification exams love to throw curveballs. Hmm, decisions, decisions...
upvoted 0 times
...
Simona
1 years ago
Yeah, option B does look like the most straightforward solution. Plus, it's always good to have a backup plan in case one of the routers goes down.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julio
1 years ago
I'm leaning towards option B. It seems like it would provide the dual connectivity we need, even if it's not on both routers.
upvoted 0 times
Claribel
1 years ago
I'm also leaning towards Option B for this scenario.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamra
1 years ago
I think Option B is the way to go for Customer XYZ.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dyan
1 years ago
Option B might be the most cost-effective solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Wei
1 years ago
I agree, Option B seems to fulfill the requirements.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elvera
1 years ago
Option B looks like the best choice here.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Stanford
1 years ago
Okay, let me take a closer look at these options. *squints* Wait, is that a typo in the question? 'Provison'? Geez, the exam writers really need to proofread these things.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ammie
1 years ago
This is the kind of question that makes me wish I had a Cisco router in my living room to practice on. I'm going to have to really focus and think this through step-by-step.
upvoted 0 times
Hildegarde
11 months ago
That makes sense. I agree with Hortencia.
upvoted 0 times
...
Hortencia
11 months ago
Option A uses the tnth RI and R2 interface for load toward the hub site.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gayla
12 months ago
Why do you think Option A is the correct choice?
upvoted 0 times
...
Hortencia
12 months ago
Option A
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aleisha
1 years ago
Hmm, this seems like a tricky question. I'm not sure which configuration would best achieve the objective of using the R1 and R2 interfaces for load balancing towards the hub site while dealing with budget constraints.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sol
1 years ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. The wording is a bit convoluted, and the diagrams don't seem to match up perfectly with the options. I might have to just guess on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edison
1 years ago
I agree, this question is way too specific. It's like they're trying to trick us rather than assess our actual knowledge. I'm going to have to really scrutinize those diagrams to have any chance of getting this right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Gerald
1 years ago
I'm not a fan of this question. It seems overly technical and focused on obscure router configurations. I'd much prefer a question that tests our understanding of networking principles and protocols at a higher level.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77